4 ms·

The truth about student loans

15 points by samh 17y ago

dangrossman 17y ago
I always feel the need to squirrel away more gold under the mattress after listening to Schiff talk.
alan_p 17y ago
Eh. It's the good old escalation argument all over again. Sure, you can fix some problems by cutting the broken solutions and letting it escalate until it solves itself. Sure, the end result will be better than the status quo, but why would anyone ever want to go through the mess that would lie in between if short-term planning is so strongly encouraged (by human nature, if nothing else)‽
- djcapelis 17y ago
  Okay, let's be clear on something. The US higher education system remains the top higher education system in the world. This is relatively undisputed. There are pieces of it that are broken, but the assumption that some new better system will inevitably and miraculously emerge if only we had the political will to smash what we have to pieces is silly. I'm for reform, I'm not for blindly destroying something we have and simply crossing my fingers in hope that it becomes better that way. If you're concerned about how education runs, feel free to propose a new system, but don't simply assume that if we smash it with a sledge hammer something better will emerge. Frankly the only thing that's likely to result in is ensuring the US lose its superpower status permanently. (I think people often forget just how much of our military advantage is predicated on a research infrastructure that involves US universities. Universities here do a hell of a lot more than just teach students. Frankly anyone who supports our military needs to consider that our existing system of universities critical to its success. Smashing this system is as reckless as proposing to simply cut funding to the military and then expecting them go to fight China or take over the middle east or whatever.)
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Is the US education system the best in the world? Or is the US credentialing system, or perhaps academic research system the best in the world? I don't see a compelling reason why controlling costs on the education side would harm the credentialing and research parts of the system.
    - djcapelis 17y ago
      The video advocates cutting professors salaries in half. The guy actually says that. If you don't see how that could impact a university's research operations then... I'm not sure how we can really agree on anything. :) The education parts of the university and the research parts of the university are not staffed separately. In a research university the people who do research are some of the same people who design lesson plans. The idea is that this enhances a student's educational experience. I agree though, that tuition is indeed too high. But I'm willing to stand by the assertion that our education system is the best in the world too, not just our research system. This is even more true when it comes to our graduate programs.
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        The video advocates cutting professors salaries in half. The guy actually says that. If you don't see how that could impact a university's research operations then... I'm not sure how we can really agree on anything. :) It would actually be pretty easy to cut salaries without impacting research; pay separately for teaching and research. Teaching a class pays $4-6k/class, or whatever market rate for a PTL is. Grant supported research pays a market rate salary for research. Then we get teaching for cheap, but don't sacrifice the quality of research. As for enhancing a student's educational experience, meh. Some people are good at research and teaching. Far more people are good only at one. Because universities want grant money, this usually means good researchers but bad teachers provide teaching (and waste time not doing research). Not sure how this "enhances" a student's educational experience.
        djcapelis 17y ago
djcapelis 17y ago
Summary: Political rant with editorialized title. Speaker advocates for cuts to student loan programs to produce massive cuts the university budgets leading to decreased program quality but affordable prices. I'm not sure this is even worth criticizing because frankly this guy is completely clueless, but: * The decreased program quality part seems to be skimmed over. * Educational institutions that just react to market forces are bad educational institutions. Market forces result in grade inflation and low graduation standards, something I think most people agree are extremely unfortunate trends. Alternative proposal: Redirect student loan subsidies from students towards institutions directly, possibly also bias the subsidies towards public institutions. The result should be lower tuition for everyone, mild downward forces on private institutions' tuition costs, hopefully no cuts to program quality and reasonable levels of affordability for reduced income students who will still rely on need-based aid more than loans and continue to have fairly cheap public schools they can opt to go to.
- djcapelis 17y ago
  I'd love to hear comments and replies rather than simply seeing your downvotes or your upvotes.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    If you have to know, I accidentally downvoted you. I was torn between downvoting, commenting and ignoring you, and I clicked before I thought it through. Giving money directly to the schools is not even wrong. Costs are totally out of control as it is. But you are correct that we have a great university system, so I figure you're at least hitting on something and are best left to your own devices. Sorry for the downvote. No conspiracy was afoot.
    - djcapelis 17y ago
      Sorry for the mistaken assumption. I've edited the post to just be a kind reminder to others that I would appreciate replies to accompany votes. :) To clarify: I completely agree costs are out of control. I just don't agree the solution is simply to defund it.
euroclydon 17y ago
I heard about The Underground History of American Education here on HN during a discussion about Bill Gates. Someone said they wished Bill were more into Gatto (author of Underground History) than the Knowledge is Power program. I wish I could post this link to HN and have it sit at the top for a while because I think everyone should read this book. Gatto, who was an NY and NYC teacher of the year and publicly resigned in the Op Ed of the WSJ, traces out the origins of compulsory school and it's detrimental effects brilliantly. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm
- GFischer 17y ago
  You could start by helping him with his website. It looks awful from here.
Roridge 17y ago
I have calculated that I will be 40 before my student loan will be paid off... I've been paying it since 2003
- DougWebb 17y ago
  I had already started paying some of my loans when I finished undergraduate school in 1993. I started repaying the rest of them when I finished graduate school in 1996. I finished paying them around 2004. During my undergraduate years I was in an internship program, so over five years of school I had two years of fulltime work. And in grad school I was given a stipend and free tuition. This helped me (a) not borrow as much, and (b) have income to pay down my loans as quickly as I could. I remember producing paydown charts in the early 90s and thinking it'd take forever to pay my loans off, but I planned the amounts I wanted to pay each month (more than the minimum whenever I could) and it got done. My rising income over the years helped more than I could have predicted when I started.
  - ytinas 17y ago
    I don't know how much you owed, but was it worth it to pay the loans off so fast? It seems there must have been something more valuable a large sum of money could have done for you. EDIT: I mean this as an honest question, not proving a point or something. I was under the impression that these loans have pretty low interest. If the interest is low I would pay as little at a time as I possibly could.
    - DougWebb 17y ago
      Yes, it was worth it. Being a debtor puts a drag on you, even when you've got a positive net worth. Owing debt reduces your freedom and flexibility, because you need to have enough cash flow to make your debt payments. That restricts your choices. Paying your debts off also improves your credit rating quickly, which is important after graduating college because sooner or later you're probably going to want a home, and mortgage you need for that will most likely be more than your school loans were. Paying your loans off first proves you can handle the mortgage debt.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
samchan 17y ago
amazing.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
holdenc 17y ago
The government is merely the enabler here. The other part is the unshakable belief by most Americans that four years at a private liberal arts college is worth $200K.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  if corporations support this notion with inflated salaries the circle is complete. this is where the notion is slowly changing, and it will take years to trickle down to the other systems.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
gacek 17y ago
The problem is that the opposite system - publically funded high education has even deeper flaws. Many students choose completely useless programs (straight to unemployment), students don't fell entitled to criticize anything, and of course the universities don't treat them like paying customers.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  uh...the alternative to government intervention is more severe government intervention? the alternative is to stop having the government directly subsidize higher education through grants and loans. instead let taxpayers keep that money and fund schools themselves. do you know how the ivy leagues got to be the ivy leagues? by raising prices until demand and supply met instead of artificially low prices and quotas^1. the best plan would be to raise prices until demand is slightly lower than supply so that you have room for poor merit students. 1. colleges were quite a bit different before WW2. that's when public funding of university research really took off, due to military interest.
fierarul 17y ago
I have doubts that the guy would manage to single-handedly publish any piece of legislation. So while there is some economical talk, it's actually more towards a political fund gathering talk.

15 points by samh 17y ago

I always feel the need to squirrel away more gold under the mattress after listening to Schiff talk.

Eh. It's the good old escalation argument all over again. Sure, you can fix some problems by cutting the broken solutions and letting it escalate until it solves itself. Sure, the end result will be better than the status quo, but why would anyone ever want to go through the mess that would lie in between if short-term planning is so strongly encouraged (by human nature, if nothing else)‽

djcapelis 17y ago
Okay, let's be clear on something. The US higher education system remains the top higher education system in the world. This is relatively undisputed. There are pieces of it that are broken, but the assumption that some new better system will inevitably and miraculously emerge if only we had the political will to smash what we have to pieces is silly. I'm for reform, I'm not for blindly destroying something we have and simply crossing my fingers in hope that it becomes better that way. If you're concerned about how education runs, feel free to propose a new system, but don't simply assume that if we smash it with a sledge hammer something better will emerge. Frankly the only thing that's likely to result in is ensuring the US lose its superpower status permanently. (I think people often forget just how much of our military advantage is predicated on a research infrastructure that involves US universities. Universities here do a hell of a lot more than just teach students. Frankly anyone who supports our military needs to consider that our existing system of universities critical to its success. Smashing this system is as reckless as proposing to simply cut funding to the military and then expecting them go to fight China or take over the middle east or whatever.)
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Is the US education system the best in the world? Or is the US credentialing system, or perhaps academic research system the best in the world? I don't see a compelling reason why controlling costs on the education side would harm the credentialing and research parts of the system.
  - djcapelis 17y ago
    The video advocates cutting professors salaries in half. The guy actually says that. If you don't see how that could impact a university's research operations then... I'm not sure how we can really agree on anything. :) The education parts of the university and the research parts of the university are not staffed separately. In a research university the people who do research are some of the same people who design lesson plans. The idea is that this enhances a student's educational experience. I agree though, that tuition is indeed too high. But I'm willing to stand by the assertion that our education system is the best in the world too, not just our research system. This is even more true when it comes to our graduate programs.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      The video advocates cutting professors salaries in half. The guy actually says that. If you don't see how that could impact a university's research operations then... I'm not sure how we can really agree on anything. :) It would actually be pretty easy to cut salaries without impacting research; pay separately for teaching and research. Teaching a class pays $4-6k/class, or whatever market rate for a PTL is. Grant supported research pays a market rate salary for research. Then we get teaching for cheap, but don't sacrifice the quality of research. As for enhancing a student's educational experience, meh. Some people are good at research and teaching. Far more people are good only at one. Because universities want grant money, this usually means good researchers but bad teachers provide teaching (and waste time not doing research). Not sure how this "enhances" a student's educational experience.
      - djcapelis 17y ago

djcapelis 17y ago

Summary: Political rant with editorialized title. Speaker advocates for cuts to student loan programs to produce massive cuts the university budgets leading to decreased program quality but affordable prices. I'm not sure this is even worth criticizing because frankly this guy is completely clueless, but: * The decreased program quality part seems to be skimmed over. * Educational institutions that just react to market forces are bad educational institutions. Market forces result in grade inflation and low graduation standards, something I think most people agree are extremely unfortunate trends. Alternative proposal: Redirect student loan subsidies from students towards institutions directly, possibly also bias the subsidies towards public institutions. The result should be lower tuition for everyone, mild downward forces on private institutions' tuition costs, hopefully no cuts to program quality and reasonable levels of affordability for reduced income students who will still rely on need-based aid more than loans and continue to have fairly cheap public schools they can opt to go to.

djcapelis 17y ago
I'd love to hear comments and replies rather than simply seeing your downvotes or your upvotes.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  If you have to know, I accidentally downvoted you. I was torn between downvoting, commenting and ignoring you, and I clicked before I thought it through. Giving money directly to the schools is not even wrong. Costs are totally out of control as it is. But you are correct that we have a great university system, so I figure you're at least hitting on something and are best left to your own devices. Sorry for the downvote. No conspiracy was afoot.
  - djcapelis 17y ago
    Sorry for the mistaken assumption. I've edited the post to just be a kind reminder to others that I would appreciate replies to accompany votes. :) To clarify: I completely agree costs are out of control. I just don't agree the solution is simply to defund it.

euroclydon 17y ago

I heard about The Underground History of American Education here on HN during a discussion about Bill Gates. Someone said they wished Bill were more into Gatto (author of Underground History) than the Knowledge is Power program. I wish I could post this link to HN and have it sit at the top for a while because I think everyone should read this book. Gatto, who was an NY and NYC teacher of the year and publicly resigned in the Op Ed of the WSJ, traces out the origins of compulsory school and it's detrimental effects brilliantly. http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

GFischer 17y ago
You could start by helping him with his website. It looks awful from here.

Roridge 17y ago

I have calculated that I will be 40 before my student loan will be paid off... I've been paying it since 2003

DougWebb 17y ago
I had already started paying some of my loans when I finished undergraduate school in 1993. I started repaying the rest of them when I finished graduate school in 1996. I finished paying them around 2004. During my undergraduate years I was in an internship program, so over five years of school I had two years of fulltime work. And in grad school I was given a stipend and free tuition. This helped me (a) not borrow as much, and (b) have income to pay down my loans as quickly as I could. I remember producing paydown charts in the early 90s and thinking it'd take forever to pay my loans off, but I planned the amounts I wanted to pay each month (more than the minimum whenever I could) and it got done. My rising income over the years helped more than I could have predicted when I started.
- ytinas 17y ago
  I don't know how much you owed, but was it worth it to pay the loans off so fast? It seems there must have been something more valuable a large sum of money could have done for you. EDIT: I mean this as an honest question, not proving a point or something. I was under the impression that these loans have pretty low interest. If the interest is low I would pay as little at a time as I possibly could.
  - DougWebb 17y ago
    Yes, it was worth it. Being a debtor puts a drag on you, even when you've got a positive net worth. Owing debt reduces your freedom and flexibility, because you need to have enough cash flow to make your debt payments. That restricts your choices. Paying your debts off also improves your credit rating quickly, which is important after graduating college because sooner or later you're probably going to want a home, and mortgage you need for that will most likely be more than your school loans were. Paying your loans off first proves you can handle the mortgage debt.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

samchan 17y ago

amazing.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

holdenc 17y ago

The government is merely the enabler here. The other part is the unshakable belief by most Americans that four years at a private liberal arts college is worth $200K.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
if corporations support this notion with inflated salaries the circle is complete. this is where the notion is slowly changing, and it will take years to trickle down to the other systems.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

gacek 17y ago

The problem is that the opposite system - publically funded high education has even deeper flaws. Many students choose completely useless programs (straight to unemployment), students don't fell entitled to criticize anything, and of course the universities don't treat them like paying customers.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
uh...the alternative to government intervention is more severe government intervention? the alternative is to stop having the government directly subsidize higher education through grants and loans. instead let taxpayers keep that money and fund schools themselves. do you know how the ivy leagues got to be the ivy leagues? by raising prices until demand and supply met instead of artificially low prices and quotas^1. the best plan would be to raise prices until demand is slightly lower than supply so that you have room for poor merit students. 1. colleges were quite a bit different before WW2. that's when public funding of university research really took off, due to military interest.

fierarul 17y ago

I have doubts that the guy would manage to single-handedly publish any piece of legislation. So while there is some economical talk, it's actually more towards a political fund gathering talk.